Fortunately, slooowly but surely, more light is being shed on "47 million Americans...uninsured" (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/columnists/
cguerra/stories/MYSA092507.01B.guerra.345d50c.html).
The first and most striking being that 1/5 of them aren't even American! It was entertaining to watch Hillary Clinton this weekend assert that her plan wouldn't cover illegal immigrants, yet she, along with other demagogues, continue to cite that number. Isn't that at least a little disingenuous??
Also, more than 1/3 make more than $50,000, with almost 1/5 of those making more than $75,000. Many choose to go without, as is their perfect right. I once did, even though, at the time, I made less than $30,000. Whenever I went to the doctor, I paid out of pocket, which one could argue is better in that it exposes the patient to the true cost of health care today. More of that and costs might come down as a result of people thinking twice before going in for a simple cold.
Then there are those who are eligible for government plans but who haven't signed up. Who's fault is that??
The very snapshot nature of that figure explains that many of those "47 million" are without insurance (NOT without health care) only temporarily, for example due to the fact that they are between jobs, something that itself can be remedied by conferring upon individuals the same kind of tax treatment businesses receive.
I thought a little bit more this weekend about the fact that this could extend eligibility to kids living in households making more than $80,000. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of that prospect, and the backdoor way in which it attempts to engulf a few more citizens into government-run health care. I understand that costs of living are different from state to state; $80,000 doesn't go as far, say, in California as it does here in Texas (and only partially due to higher taxes out there). This debate also brings to light the need, perhaps, to determine poverty rates based on state and local costs of living.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Thursday, September 06, 2007
My Thoughts Right Now
In response to my inquiry the other day, my solid-red republican friend told me that he is as undecided as anyone with regard to the Presidential candidates. It gave me the opportunity to assess where I stand currently:
Romney seems too slick to me. As much as anyone, I can understand how someone can go from generally (not stridently) pro-choice to pro-life, but his history just seems too inconsistent.
Huckabee's "Club for Greed" comment and support of a national smoking ban have me souring on him. His support for the FairTax (I still prefer a flat tax, but either would be an improvement) and the health example he set by losing so much weight work in his favor. He's striking me as the closest to a Bush-Republican, which isn't 100% good thing.
McCain has too many strikes against him for me. Voted against the tax cuts, McCain-Feingold, he's bought into the blame-human aspect of global warming, the immigration thing (which immediately bit him in the ass), etc. His military service, his consistency and foreign policy stances work for him.
Don't know enough about Fred yet. Between his March "I-might-run" announcement and now, he's written many good things on townhall.com.
Paul is the person with whom I agree the most, especially since I found out he is pro-life. He acknowledges the wasted, double-standard nature of the vaunted War on Drugs. He's for the kind of scaled back government I'd like to see. I'm not sure I agree with his anti-Federal Reserve stance. He's for pure free trade, not the "managed" kind that works around tariffs and other artificial barriers. And there's a couple thoughts I've always had that make me curious about his foreign policy stance: why were we as involved as we were with Iran in the years leading up to the hostage crisis (reading up on that is at the top of my if-I-had-more-hours-in-the-day list), and would Reagan have gone to such lengths to kick Saddam out of Kuwait? Part of me thinks we dole out way too much in foreign aid (actually, 90% of me thinks that) and that we're too involved, whether overtly or covertly, in other countries' affairs. Anyway, chances of him being elected are slim.
That's why I'm still leaning solidly toward Giuliani. I like his idea on health insurance reform, which is a lot like W's. I have little doubt about his leadership and how forceful he'd be in promoting and defending our interests. I think he knows the correct prescription for a strong economy. While he's said the right thing about judges (which, in my mind, all but cancels out his pro-choice stance), what I've read about his history is a little inconsistent with that. Other than that, he's been consistent and unapologetic with regard to who he is and what he believes. Take him or leave him. Plus, it'd be different to have a former mayor as president. And who else could put New York and California in play more than him?
Out of all those, however, I think Newt is the smartest.
Romney seems too slick to me. As much as anyone, I can understand how someone can go from generally (not stridently) pro-choice to pro-life, but his history just seems too inconsistent.
Huckabee's "Club for Greed" comment and support of a national smoking ban have me souring on him. His support for the FairTax (I still prefer a flat tax, but either would be an improvement) and the health example he set by losing so much weight work in his favor. He's striking me as the closest to a Bush-Republican, which isn't 100% good thing.
McCain has too many strikes against him for me. Voted against the tax cuts, McCain-Feingold, he's bought into the blame-human aspect of global warming, the immigration thing (which immediately bit him in the ass), etc. His military service, his consistency and foreign policy stances work for him.
Don't know enough about Fred yet. Between his March "I-might-run" announcement and now, he's written many good things on townhall.com.
Paul is the person with whom I agree the most, especially since I found out he is pro-life. He acknowledges the wasted, double-standard nature of the vaunted War on Drugs. He's for the kind of scaled back government I'd like to see. I'm not sure I agree with his anti-Federal Reserve stance. He's for pure free trade, not the "managed" kind that works around tariffs and other artificial barriers. And there's a couple thoughts I've always had that make me curious about his foreign policy stance: why were we as involved as we were with Iran in the years leading up to the hostage crisis (reading up on that is at the top of my if-I-had-more-hours-in-the-day list), and would Reagan have gone to such lengths to kick Saddam out of Kuwait? Part of me thinks we dole out way too much in foreign aid (actually, 90% of me thinks that) and that we're too involved, whether overtly or covertly, in other countries' affairs. Anyway, chances of him being elected are slim.
That's why I'm still leaning solidly toward Giuliani. I like his idea on health insurance reform, which is a lot like W's. I have little doubt about his leadership and how forceful he'd be in promoting and defending our interests. I think he knows the correct prescription for a strong economy. While he's said the right thing about judges (which, in my mind, all but cancels out his pro-choice stance), what I've read about his history is a little inconsistent with that. Other than that, he's been consistent and unapologetic with regard to who he is and what he believes. Take him or leave him. Plus, it'd be different to have a former mayor as president. And who else could put New York and California in play more than him?
Out of all those, however, I think Newt is the smartest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)